On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 05:32:07PM +0100, fabien.b.villard_at_socgen.com wrote:
>
> >There are two reasons why I don't compile with -pedantic: First,
> >it's almost impossible to get all the signed/unsigned warnings
> >fixed. Second, I could never find any bug in the code with that
> >option and it complains about a lot of useless stuff.
>
> Extract from gcc man page :
>
> [-pedantic] There is no reason to use this option; it exists only to
> satisfy
> pedants.
>
> This would answer questions about what compilers designers have
> in mind when generating warnings :-))))))))
> I used to use it, thinking that all warnings are good to see and
> track
> down. But with time I feel like Dominik about this particuliar option.
Well, it may be a good thing to get all that signed/unsigned
conversions straight. But if you didn't do that right from the
start, chances are slim that you'll ever get them all fixed. I
once tried that, but stopped when streams of new bugs with
implicit conversions came in.
Bye
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt, email: d.vogt_at_lifebits.de
LifeBits Aktiengesellschaft, Albrechtstr. 9, D-72072 Tuebingen
fon: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-0, fax: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-20
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Mon Mar 18 2002 - 12:05:04 GMT